[dragoon500ly]

Originally Posted by Adm.Lee

Pardon the intrusion, but I'm surprised to hear this about the Strykers. Is it the machine itself, or the organization, or the deployment that is the problem? I'm hearing some of each.

Based on what I've seen of the vehicle so far, I would have to say its the usual new vehicle working the kinks out more than anything else, that is for the BASIC Stryker! The Stryker variants are their own special headache.

As for the vehicle, I am surprised to hear that it is having mechanical trouble, as I had heard high praise for the testing procedures (back when I had friends on active duty). Also, since it was based on an existing (and presumable de-bugged) chassis, that seems extraordinary that it would be failing as described.

Compared to previous programs, pioneered by the M-1 program, the testing for Stryker was moving about as expected until the decision to starting throwing Stryker Brigade Combat Teams into Iraq, there was a lot of teething problems. I do understand the desire to replace the up-armored HMMWV, and Stryker seemed to do well in low-to-moderate intensity engagements, its when the heavy stuff came out that Stryker started showing problems. Based on what I am reading and hearing, there is the possibility of the Strykers being thrown into areas that should have been hit with heavy brigades, complete with arty and air support. I thing I have noticed in talking to GIs, is that the viewpoint towards Stryker depends on if the soldier was taking heavy fire. One story that I heard from several different eyewitnesses was one Stryker taking 14.5mm machinegun fire that penetrated the side and had at least several rounds that penetrated both sides....and the vehicle is supposed to be proof against such fire. I've also been assured by at least two officers that this never happened. Hmmmmm

I also have difficulty with the newer brigade of 2 line battalions, but that's a different issue right now. Fighting guerrillas needs lots of well-trained troops, not lots of HQs without the capability to cover ground.

No arguement from me...

As for the medium-weight, wheeled-mobile, air-portable unit, well, that sounds like cavalry to me, at least in terms of mobility. Not for shock action on a "high-intensity" battlefield, but in my mind, Armor took over for Heavy Cavalry some time ago. Would it be less of an issue if the "Stryker brigade labelled a cavalry regiment" had a different, heavier, TO&E, rather than being "just another" motorized infantry brigade? Something to give anti-mech. capability to the airborne/light guys?

The medium/heavy arguement has been going since 1945. The US didn't have much luck with armored cars and never really wanted them. When Vietnam kicked off, there was a need for medium weight armor once again, instead of going with armored cars, the decision was to modify the M-113 into something called the Armored Cavalry Combat Vehicle. This the M-113 with the circular shield for the .50 and the gun shield on either side for a M-60 for those who have never seen a ACCV. The problem is that the M-113 wasn't very good for that role. Mobility was decent, but the firepower/armor mix was weak.

As the 70s/80s rolled on, the US Army started to see just how good armored cars could be by watching the French, Germans and Brits. Now personally, I think the French had some very good ideas with the AMX-10RC and the Lynx. Even the German Luchs and the British Scimitar/Scorpion/Spartan series caught a lot of attention. In an environment such as Europe, with an extensive hard and soft-surfaced road network, wheeled vehicles actually have an advantage over tracked vehicles. At one point there was a lot of discussion about purchasing Scimitar/Spartans and equipping at least the divisional cavalry squadrons with them...needless to say, not-invented-here struck and that idea crashed and burned.

The issue with the army deploying Stryker is that the force mix is moving from light/heavy to medium. Not a bad idea from a budget standpoint...right? The problem with how it is being implentmented, we are destroying our heavy capability in favor of medium with little regard as to who we may be fighting in a decade. I, for one, would hate to see a Stryker Brigade taking on a Iranian armored division...I know that there is a lot of claims that the IVIS system makes up for the difference...call me hard-headed and old fashioned...but crossing barrels with a T-72 is a hell of a lot cheaper when you are using a M-1.